Talk:Night raid on Narang

Untitled

I offered this up for deletion as the article has definite NPOV issues. Particularly as to who was pulling triggers. The wrriter says americans,but the official Afghan enquiry just says International forces. Anyway there is a lot of work to be done to avoid deletion. Apart from anything else it is a known fact that the Taleban and Al-Quaeda will subvert anyone of ANY AGE to carry out their terrorist activities!!!Petebutt (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a new but well sourced article and i agree that there are still a lot of things to do but deletion is not the right way to go. IQinn (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I disagree with the sources angle, newspapers are not credible enough to support an article on their own!!!. But if nothing gets done I still think it should be deleted.Petebutt (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know the actual ages of the deceased? Judging from the pictures of the victims, I have a very hard time believing that 12-18 was the actual ages of more than perhaps one or two of the victims. More over, the article sounds more like propaganda then a Wikipedia article. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, the age of the "victims" is just one issue, the article has lots of lapses between what is in the sources and what has been presented in the encyclopedia. It presents these events as facts rather then allegations and yes, it reads like propaganda. V7-sport (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The article presents the facts according to the sources in a NPOV. IQinn (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it reads like propaganda.V7-sport (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. That is nonsense and comes from an editor whose editing history here on wikipedia shows the strongest US right-wing patriotism we have ever seen here. IQinn (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, infinity. It comes from at least 3 editors who have taken the time to post on this talk page. V7-sport (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That there are a lot of Americans that can not face the truth - that scores of school children got executed - does not come to a surprise to me. But there are enough reliable sources that verify this. IQinn (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Gee, you don't sound very neutral. You do realize you aren't supposed to take sides here. By the way, RE. the sources you just used, the aljazeera article says "alleged killing" and the Times article states "Nato officers have hinted that they were Afghan." Stop misrepresenting what your sources say. V7-sport (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am absolutely NPOV that is simply ridiculous and comes from someone who has shown the strongest US right-wing patriotism ever. Stop misrepresenting with out of context quotes. Anyway lets do it step by step. 1) Do you agree or disagree that these 10 people have been killed? IQinn (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"US right-wing patriotism" I object to that. I have edited without bias. Had I called you an islamist terrorist apologist you would have run to to the ANI. Provide a reliable source that does not go back to the words of Karzais cronies or relatives of the alleged victims for "10 killed" please, as well as the rest of the article. V7-sport (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That clearly shows that you either did not read the sources or you own POV makes you blind this is a verified fact. It is verified in almost all of the references just to copy and paste a few of them over here [1],[2] as i know you otherwise you will keep doubting the obvious. Are these two enough or shall i copy and paste more for you. Do we have now consensus that 10 people have been killed? IQinn (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"you own POV makes you blind" That is not WP:civ. Sure, those will do for 10. V7-sport (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for that but i was right 10 people were killed. What's next? IQinn (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Overkill on CN tags in the lede

V7 this is total overkill and it is disrupting. Get familiar with the sources first this is almost all referenced in the article. You as well just broke WP:BRD as you reverted me instead of bringing up the issue on the talk page. That is bad considering your edit warring history. IQinn (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC) This comes with tons of other not helpful tags as doubting that The Times would be an unreliable source. Combined with the other over taging that is "Drive-by" tagging and that is prohibited and disruptive.IQinn (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue was brought up right above where you are writing. This article is poorly sourced and relates the words of "Mohammed Taleb Abdul Ajan", Jan Mohammed and Assadullah Wafa as if they were unimpeachable fact. This isn't "drive-by tagging", I am explaining the reasoning behind them here. At least 1 other editor agrees. V7-sport (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is well sourced and you better read them before clutter the article with tags about information that is already in the sources in the article. The Time is a reliable source that this part is not presented as fact. That seems to be clearly drive-by tagging and most of them are in fact not explained on the talk page. IQinn (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well no, it relies on the testimonials of highly involved partcipants and reports it as fact. Further, it pins the blame on US forces when the references make it clear that this was an Afghan/NATO operation. V7-sport (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up a lot of different issues so let's do it one by one. IQinn (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You have reverted the tags without providing proper citation, the same as edit warring. V7-sport (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Replacing CN tags with citations is not edit warring. As said let's do it step by step now. If there are still problems please specify them here on the talk page and we will fix them. I do not doubt that any article on Wikipedia can be improved and it can be even improved in a better way when 2 or more editors work together. So let's do that. IQinn (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What a mess

This article is a disaster. It's written in a way which indicates that some Special Forces guys walked into a village, pulled a dozen kids out of their beds and then executed them for no apparent reason. Obviously non-sense. Let's not write up a piece of fiction based of of initial and hysterical reports and accusations by the CYA crew in Kabul, okay? The latest ref I could find (Feb 26, 2010) indicates that US forces might not have even been present so much as the shooters in this raid. The media seems to have dropped this like a bad habit around early January as evidence began to emerge that it was bunk and I'm having trouble finding refs past February despite promises of an investigation by the Afghan government and ISAF. Can anyone else find anything so we can undo this abortion? TomPointTwo (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That is the story according to the references and sources. Let's not change it into pro war propaganda. IQinn (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a disappointing response. TomPointTwo (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is in quite a mess. For an example, were the deceased killed in one room, two rooms or three rooms? No one's out to convert the "article" to pro-war propaganda, rather to change it from anti-war propaganda into a genuine article. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's bad enough that I figure it needs the rewrite treatment. I've written an initial draft in one of my sandboxes which is available for review and input by other editors. It contains a couple new refs (out to March or April I think) and demonstrates that the initial reports from all parties were not entrily accurate with some being flat out wrong. The New York Times article I ref speculates that's the case from pretty much out of the gate. TomPointTwo (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's lovely mate, perfect example of how to do it. I'd prefer it over how it looks now. Much more to the point, relevant and NPOV. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm going to let it sit for awhile to let others look it over before I make any changes, especially Iqinn as he's likely to have the most critical eye. TomPointTwo (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be great if you would post that. It's going to get the article further/faster then badgering Iqinn. V7-sport (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope he doesn't consider my asking for his input to be badgering. :) TomPointTwo (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

To be clear I was referring to my own interaction with him. :-) I might be all wrong, but I suspect it may have been interpreted as such. At any rate, your rewrite looks clean, coherent and accurate.V7-sport (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I just removed parts of the article as a compromise. IQinn (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Too little. The story of a sole unconfirmed eyewitness is still the only thing to read in the "Summary of events". There still isn't anything new, just old sources and none of the new material available in Tom's draft. In other words, it still smells like propaganda and there's no real value in the article. I say we leave this version behind us and turn our attention to the new draft, it's very promising and it has the clear advantage of looking like a Wikipedia article. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's all we have the eyewitness report. Would be nice to have also the US/NATO site of the events but as far is i know they did not release or declassified what happened including to name the exact troops that were involved. So for me it is not understandable to remove the statement of the eyewitness the only information we do have. Anyway you see i compromise again and removed it. Please specify further issues in detail instead of just calling verified information "propaganda". Which section? IQinn (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This was addressed in the draft, extensively and in more detail than presently offered. Did you read it? You should also note that the initial reporting was not "verified" it was early reporting on allegations. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

IQinn, would you mind stop removing the neutral banner? It's clearly stated that it is not to be removed until the dispute has been settled, and there's three persons here who don't think it is. This isn't the place for "compromises". They're just like if I'd steal a car from you, and eventually compromise by saying that you can have it back without the seats and wheels. The current article is so sub standard by now that I'm conflicted as to wether I should put a neutral banner over it, ask for the relevance, or just plainly nominate it for deletion. Please, feel free to give your input on the new draft. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

TomPointTwo - It is the opposite around your draft focus to much on the early reporting and denial of NATO and US troops. While focusing less on what they admit later. I removed a lot of information as a compormise and other editors worked pm the article. So you should be able to point out what is still "propaganda" in this article, it is not. So just tell us what is wrong with it now? Please explain. IQinn (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

82.182.76.119 - No problem to leave the banner. It was just a good faith action after compromising. So please specify what is still wrong and "propaganda" in this article. Thank you IQinn (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Your wording makes it hard for me to follow your perception of the draft but I can tell you that the most glaring problems are the overuse of loaded words, over reliance on a single source and the assertions of fact on points clearly in dispute. The article also doesn't reveal the clear confusion over the nature of the attackers evidenced in later reporting nor the fact that the Afghan government has been unable to identify them at any point. This article presents a narrative based on very early speculation as fact when it is clearly not. These faults are rectified in the draft. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The article does not rely on a single source. It does represent both sides while your article focus to much on the early reporting it seems also to leave out many aspects [3] and seems biased. I think there are much more things to fix in your article than in the one here that has been reworked. Your article is not as well structured as this one here and you did not give as a lot of examples what would be so terrible wrong with the article here after the changes. Things can easily be fixed. While there would be a lot of editing work needed on your initial draft to make it factual accurate and NPOV. IQinn (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason I keep removing the RAWA link is the fact that those pictures are linked to solely because of the shock value it has persuading people that NATO troops are nothing but murderers. Why do you think there's no links what-so-ever to beheading videos, or the video of a 101:st Soldiers decapitated head being kicked about on the ground by Iraqi insurgents? Who ever linked to the RAWA page in the first place can't have intended to use it as anything but propaganda. In the current situation, focus is on you to explain why this thin, bias article with little or no value should remain and not be replaced by a NPOV, coherent, gramatically correct article which represents both sides of the story. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No i dispute that. That are just the images of the people killed this is by no means propaganda. Not to link to the images would be propaganda. Just them images of those who died nothing else. You claim the article is still biased and does not represent bother sides after all these changes. That seems to be not true. Than please tell us what is missing?

Agree with 82.182.76.119. Further, the source is highly suspect. V7-sport (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

IQinn, please sign your posts. In light of the fact that pictures of decapitated hostages are not linked to, give me a good reason as to why the link should stay. The only reason it's there is to shock people and turn them against ISAF/NATO. Wikipedia is not a propaganda broadcasting center. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

V7 - The Times is highly suspect? I doubt that and i think you need to explain that. IQinn (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

82.182.76.119, These are just images of war victims and not decapitated hostages of terrorists. WP:NOTCENSORED is a good reason. They would be even qualify to be presented in the article if the copyright status would allow that and we might could discuss about that but there is simply no reason nor policy that would not allow an external link to the images of the victims. IQinn (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

RAWA is the source that I was referring to, and yeah, it's highly suspect. Per NOTCENSORED, 82.182.76.119 is correct per WP:NOTPROMOTION. V7-sport (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is simply not censored and there is nothing wrong at all to have an external link to the images of the victims.

There is nothing suspect with RAWA. You claim they faked these images?

WP:NOTPROMOTION? :)) No that policy surely does not apply. Please explain how that policy applies to this link? IQinn (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Per 82.182.76.119's argument, "Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise." (I think you actually posted that one before.) RAWA is an advocacy group, per mission statement so yes, suspect. V7-sport (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

82.182.76.119 - with this edit you clearly broke WP:BRD. IQinn (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

V7 - RAWA advocates for the rights of the women and there is nothing propaganda in presenting the images of those who were killed. Is it propaganda to show images of those killed in the second world war? No it is education and we are an educational site. IQinn (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"We are"? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he's using the royal "we"?V7-sport (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Aren't "we" Wikipedia and Wikipedia is an educational site? IQinn (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

RE.RAWA, it's an advocacy site, as you acknowledge. Their standards for inclusion are different then a regular news source. V7-sport (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There are an advocacy site for womens rights what is irrelevant here as this is not about womens rights. "Their standards for inclusion are different then a regular news source." What do you mean by that? Once again do you believe they faked these images? This here is just about the images and it is about 'our own standards and we are indeed and educational site and these images are educational and a simply link to these images is needed and it does not matter at all on what server they are unless you claim these images are faked. IQinn (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you do not have further counter arguments. Can we find consensus and include a link to the images of the victims? There should be one to educate the people they are to many people who even even doubted that these young people have been killed. Leave alone who did it it does not matter and it does not matter on what server these images are located it just should be possible for any of our readers to have a link to them. IQinn (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Just in case you still disagree than i will bring it to the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard to bring it to the attention of the community but i still hope we can find consensus. Cheers IQinn (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This article's factual accuracy is disputed

Please specify what is factual not accurate. The tag was removed after extensive changes. Please tell us what is not factual accurate. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We need to establish that US forces might not have been involved, let alone those who were responsible for the deaths. I think it was explained well here.V7-sport (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

By "us" do you mean "you"? I don't think there's any need to start a whole new section for dramatic effect. Regardless, the central premise of the raid is under dispute. NATO and the ISAF clearly state that no US or NATO forces were involved in shooting the villagers. The Afghan President made it clear he doesn't know who the shooters were. There's extensive information about malicious intent in the intelligence from local Afghans and senior NATO officials asserting that the shooters were "non-military" and "Afghan". The entire article is bogus, it creates a narrative from some initial and sketchy reporting on early accusations and presents it as verified fact. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well than let's work on that. TomPointTwo's draft focus to much on the other side so the truth should be somewhere in the middle. Your statement that they were not involved seems to be contradicted by this source [4] here]. IQinn (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Gee, that source says "Exactly who carried out the Narang raid is unclear.".... V7-sport (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "should be"? Also, that article is sourced in my draft (again) as NATO having authorized the strike, based on faulty intelligence. It does not say that any ISAF/NATO/US troops were involved in shooting the villagers and says that who carried out the strike is unclear. You should also note that several weeks later NATO made clear that it was not a NATO or US force and characterized the raiding party as "non-military". TomPointTwo (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My God IQinn, why can't you let this version of the article go? Is it more important to have it look like US Special Forces pulled kids out of bed in the middle of the night and killed them for nothing, than to give a clear picture (as possible) of what happened? Foreigb soldiers are not the only people with guns down there. I've said it before and I say it again, please drop this version and work with us by giving us your input on the new draft. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My God 82.182.76.119. The article does not say this. This information has been removed and your are welcome to point out details and examples in the recent version that would support your assertion. Please do so. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, no shouting or invoking deities, that's not WP:NICEV7-sport (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, "ce" stands for copy editing. This is not copy editing. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. Anything else wrong with this edit? IQinn (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. The inline citations are so screwed in this article I don't know where it's ref'd and from what I recall there was no official finding by the Afghan government of that statement. It's not in ref 4,5 or 6 that I saw. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Refs can be fixed will start working on them now. IQinn (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We need to establish that US forces might not have been involved, let alone those who were responsible for the deaths. There is an excellent outline of what a tag free article would look like here. V7-sport (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That has been addressed in the "Investigation" section. What is TomPointTwo's version. There seems to be nothing necessary to add. Same for the lead where we use TomPointTwo's version for this. IQinn (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Another big compromise

I replaced the complete investigation section with Tom's version as it is more detailed. I am always willing to compromise and so should you. If you think there is still any other problem with the latest version of this article that you need to explain and proof this in detail. You also should be willing to compromise. So far it is only my side who does. IQinn (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well that's appreciated but you don't really have a "side". You also didn't actually replace any of the material everyone else is disputing, you just added in some additional sourced material from the draft. At least you're looking at it though. So, how about we now replace the lede with the version in the draft as per the specific complaints above? And, again, I don't think we need all the new sections. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not open new sections every five seconds. You're not really a marthyr IQinn. You haven't done any compromises here, you're only stalling the inevitable. The current article is simply not good enough. Let's just replace it with Tom's and base following debates on that instead. It's a much better base to start from, and it portrays the events from a NPOV. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I hate to repeat myself but I concur. Iquinn, you're even puling cite formating from the draft at this point. Let's just use the draft and go from there. If you want to add new wording then fine, you can even tinker with my page if you want, I don't care. Either way I have real life stuff to do so I'm signing off. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

TomPointTwo, 82.182.76.119 - The article has changed and you need to show the problems in detail simply to claim that it is not good enough because you might prefer Tom's POV is not enough. I indeed have heavily compromised i completely remove the eye witness report what was disputed with tags and i completely removed the names of the victims what was also disputed with tags and i completely replaced the Investigation section with Tom's version that is biased in his way. That i would not have heavily compromised is simply wrong. Lets keep it NPOV. IQinn (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

IQinn, you're desperately defending a bias article. Me, Tom and V7 are trying to get a NPOV article up here, but appaerantly you see fit to treat the current degraded state of the article as your Alamo. As of now there are no conclusive evidence as to what took place or how, that's why we want Tom's version up here. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

82.182.76.119 - the article is NPOV and you have to show that it is not, in detail. Tom and V7 have shown to introduce an extreme pro US bias in there edition history and i am sorry to ask. You could be well a sock-puppet of one of them. IQinn (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

By consensus it has a POV problem. Accusing people of sock puppetry and "extreme pro US bias" is a WP:PA. (You should familiarize yourself with these links as you have a penchant for posting them) And please, stop trying to distract from the issue at hand, the article claims things that are not borne out by the sources and still doesn't make it clear that whomever was behind these alleged killings is unknown. V7-sport (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I don't see a lot of compromise and compromise doesn't equal verifiability. As has been pointed out, the difference between one extreme and another isn't encyclopedic fact. Here, have a look at this, it looks like an excellent compromise. V7-sport (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

IQinn: And you could be bin Laden. How very constructive. I solemny swear that I am a independent human being, and as far as I know I have never met neither of them. What they have or haven't done in the past is irrelevant. Here they present a very good case, whilst you, quite frankly do the very opposite. Instead you hang on to an old very bias version, whilst claiming that we are trying to bring fourth propaganda. More over, during the course of this dispute you have resorted to just about every foul trick, violation, etc that you accuse V7 of. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

@V7-sport - No that is not a personal attack at all it is simply something that i think your editing history shows. As said that is not a personal attack and we have to put personal bias into consideration when it has been shown in the edit history in this extreme way. Please do assume good faith AGF and do not distract the conversation with false accusations. The article is mostly in line with the sources and you will always find things that could be improved but you fail to show that it is largely biased and not according to the sources. Tom's version would also need a lot of work to make it NPOV and i have already moved parts of his draft into this article. I have taken your points in consideration and have remove extensive material from the article as a compromise. So you need to show in detail where you think are still problems. They are minor now and they can be easily fixed when people are willing to compromise and willing to work together. I might remind you that you added the unreliable source tag to The Times references what in my opinion shows that your might have problems to accept anything that does not meet your personal POV even when it is referenced by The Times. IQinn (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

@82.182.76.119 be careful with such accusations. Is there anything in my editing history that shows that i am Bin Laden? Ridiculous and just an attempt to draw the attention away from your editing history. IQinn (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course it was a personal attack, and by your reasoning your steadfast defense of islamist terrorists should also be put "into consideration when it has been shown in the edit history". I added the unreliable source tag because you were only quoting the part of theTimes article that indicted NATO, not the part that said that the Afghans were not sure who was behind the raid. That still is the case as far as I can see. Please, stop trying to weasel out of dealing with the articles factual and POV problem by making passive aggressive personal attacks. V7-sport (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

IQinn, I just checked the "Collateral Murder" article. Honestly, how can you seriously accuse others of being bias while portraying yourself as some kind of a knight dressed in shining armour? I'm very much inlined to believe that you are the most biast one involved in this. This is simply ridiculous, the current state of this article is hardly more than propaganda patched up with some revisions, in other words your famous "compromises". There is a perfectly NPOV draft laying waiting, and still you hang on to this veritable trash version of the article. Would you please mind cease this and let productive people replace this biast version? 82.182.76.119 (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This accusation of personal bias is false and i am challenging you to provide diffs. There is nothing in my history that shows that. I have already provided diffs that show that i have compromised a lot in editing this article but i do not have seen any attempt to do so from your site. I even recently got an award from a right-wing editor for my extreme NPOV. IQinn (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

V7-sport WRT "your steadfast defense of islamist terrorists should also be put into consideration". That is indeed an personal attack. Just people call me bin Laden now they accuse me of being an defender of islamist terrorists and V7 you have made similar comments in the past. It shows the real problem with you. I have never done so. There is nothing in my editing history that shows that and i am challenging on that. Simply ridiculous. I think it these accusation show that there is not way at all to work with you and i think a topic ban would be the best for you. I am eager to talk more about POV and i have ask you to show the problems in detail but instead to do so you reply with this incredible personal attack, this is disrupting. Get out of here, there is no way to work with you if you believe other editors are Islamic terrorist that you have to follow around and to fight. Absolute unbelievable this accusation. Get this guy out of here. 01:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Iqinn, when you wrote "On February 24 U.S. forces issued an apology, admitting that the U.S. had killed seven schoolboys and a neighboring shepherd." you must have known the source didn't say that. That was just a flat out falsehood. V7-sport (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Gee, you write that "No that is not a personal attack at all it is simply something that i think your editing history shows. As said that is not a personal attack and we have to put personal bias into consideration when it has been shown in the edit history in this extreme way." and that I had an ""extreme pro US bias" yet you complain when you are looked at by the same standard. Please, stop the distractions, surely you must have known that when you wrote "On February 24 U.S. forces issued an apology, admitting that the U.S. had killed seven schoolboys and a neighboring shepherd." you must have known the source you cited didn't say that, do you have another source to back that up or did you make it up out of thin air? V7-sport (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There there, I struck it. Can you get back to the issue at hand?V7-sport (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

{edit conflict)Seems to be pretty much another accusation of bad faith. "you must have known the source you cited didn't say that" If you can not assume AGF you better leave this place. I will look up the source for you but these personal attacks and accusations of bad faith are highly disturbing. You do not address my last post either provide diffs that i am a defender of Islamic terrorism or take it back. IQinn (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok now you strike it but be aware that these kind of edit summaries are unacceptable and disrupting "Poor thing" and make it look like that there might be a big gab between what you do and what you say. 02:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So you are acknowledging that when you wrote "On February 24 U.S. forces issued an apology, admitting that the U.S. had killed seven schoolboys and a neighboring shepherd" that was untrue... That's a pretty big breech of trust there, Iqinn. That's been on the encyclopedia since the day you created this article, an untrue admission of guilt from the US. V7-sport (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No i never acknowledged that this is ridiculously false misinterpretation i always and still believe that this is true and verified and re-reading my comment you will find that i actually said hat i will provide you with the references and quotes for this sentence. How could you so misinterpret what is said?

(By the way) V7-sport now even deleted this friendly good faith reminder from his talk page with the same offensive and uncivil edit summary after this one "Poor thing". It seems to be clear that he is unable to behave in a civil way and a block might be the only way to stop these disruptions of an editor who simply can not change and is not able to assume good faith. IQinn (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So you reject that and "still believe" that "On February 24 U.S. forces issued an apology admitting that the U.S. had killed seven schoolboys and a neighboring shepherd" is "true and verified" even though it is NO WHERE IN THIS ARTICLE. This has been on the encyclopedia since last August. Are you proud of yourself? You may have provided someone an excuse for violence by posting something that you just made up.V7-sport (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As said you should stop any further accusation of bad faith as otherwise you might be banned. I am working on providing you the references and quotes. I am going to work to the sources of the article again and going to work on the references. Take a nap you seems tired and let people work instead of disrupting them with useless bad faith attacks. Not long ago you even doubted that the 10 people were killed at all and i provided you with the references that proofed you wrong. So it it 1:0 for me. So stop posting comments accusing people of bad faith, really not helpful and it just distracts us from working on the article and to improve it in every possible way. Cheers IQinn (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have reworked the article according to all your suggestions and tags. There are surely still minor things to fix. So please read the article and you might just fix them. Otherwise please just bring them up here on the talk page. And please no drama anymore and try to keep it NPOV. I have again used a lot from Tom's draft and i have tried to work his POV into the article and i worked extensively towards consensus in a constructive way. I also fixed a lot of the refs. If you have further issues just mention them here on the talk page in detail and in a civil way so that we can finish fixing up this article as soon as possible. Is there still something that is factual incorrect or disputed? Cheers IQinn (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty disappointed by your flat out refusal to address the proposed changes in the form of the draft I wrote, even after I held off in the hope you'd participate. It's fine if you didn't agree with all of it, I even proposed you work on it. Instead you've been obstinate on the article and abusive toward me, and others. At this point I'm sorley tempted to just make the change and if you revert it take it to an RfC. I just really wanted to have a collaborative effort, but this is exhausting and I don't really want to participate anymore. TomPointTwo (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

TomPointTwo, this is a talk page filibuster. This is a tactic he is employing to have you and everyone else walk away in disgust so he can post flat out falsehoods like "On February 24 U.S. forces issued an apology admitting that the U.S. had killed seven schoolboys and a neighboring shepherd" with impunity. He does this, edit wars and the like because it has worked for him in the past. He has figured out that even on an ANI that is discussing banning him for edit-warring, he can amazingly get administrators to apologize to him and walk away for saying that he was effectively "pro insurgency". When the system "functions" that way the only recourse allow him to post any outrageous falsehood as he has done here or to get down in the mud with him and take your lumps from those who (also) object to the embarrassing display.

I thank you for taking the time and behaving like a gentleman but it's not going to have any effect. You have had 2 other editors come out in favor of posting your re-write. I think it's balanced, clean, correct and fair and appreciate the time it took you to write it. I think it would be great if you were to post it. V7-sport (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

@TomPointTwo it would have not been easier to rework your draft and to make it ready for main space and NPOV. I hope we can leave these things behind us now. These are not easy issues as the sources report out of a war zone and there are strong opposing POV's in topic areas like this but that does not mean that we should not be able to work together in a civil way. Thank you for writing the draft, it helped to find middle ground and helped to improve the article here. There were problems and things have been fixed and i used a lot from your draft.

V7 Thank you for the misinterpretation of this debate, the history of what has happened at ANI and other talk pages. I am not going to mirror you and list all what is false in your description and all the mistakes you made in the process here and on other articles and what i personally think about you. I prefer to work on the content instead and the discussion here should be about the content.

I have compromised extensively and i have worked constructively towards consensus. I reworked the article according to all the mentioned problems and your POV. I removed a lot of the old material, i used a lot of Tom's material i reorganized and reworded the text, i fixed the references.

NOPV and consensus is always in the middle. Now after all these changes and improvements is there still anything factual incorrect or disputed or needs to be fixed? Regards IQinn (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been abroad for a while, hence I haven't changed anything until now. Anyways, neither of the disputes are resolved. If they had been it's more likely that those who oppose you had written so, instead of just not caring any longer due to the fact that your stuborness in this matter is extremely tiresome. Don't be alarmed though, eventually I too will get tired enough of these disputes to let you have your way with the article. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not done here either, I'm just too busy right now to give it the attention it requires. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well TomPointTwo you said the opposite a week ago. IQinn (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that is unfortunate that you do not have time to work on Wikipedia but it does not give you the right to take ownership over any article or to slam the article with tags or to remove the link to the images of the victims. I will wait another two days and when you do not have provided explanations than i am going to remove the tags and re-add the link to the images. Cheers - IQinn (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

God, relax dude. I said I was discouraged a week ago and that this sort of behavior from you made me not want to participate. What's your problem? Your constantly being at DEFCON 1 is tiresome in the extreme. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"God, relax dude" Civil? What is the problem? I am very civil and i am content focused. You might focus on that as well. IQinn (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I've been nothing but civil and inclusive with your this entire time. As a matter of fact I've gone out of my way. I'm totally done trying to meet you halfway and getting abused for my efforts. I'm tired of being accused of being a propagandist and a biased war monger and a war crime apologist. In short, I'm done getting shit on by you. Since combative is the only method you seem to possess I'll find an alternative to cooperative engagement to fix this article. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I am civil and nobody accuses you of anything and i have made many compromises in rewriting the article. Your ad hominem's are baseless. I do not see anything in your last replies that addresses the content issues. Please do address the outstanding content issues so the article can be fixed. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You use civil words, but your behaviour is extremely obnoxious. You yourself have treated this article like it belongs to you, and like you have done great compromises by letting us in on it. You think that you are the one who sets the rules, and that we are supposed to play by them all along. I am fully entitled to "slam this article with tags" as those tags are there because A, the facts are in dispute, and B, because the neutrality of the article is in dispute. As a matter of fact you broke the rules by removing those tags simply because people had gotten tired of arguing with you and had found better things to invest their time in for the moment. You know well why we don't like this article, if you don't know then just read what we have written. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Tag: The neutrality of this article is dispute

Please list the outstanding problems: IQinn (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We need to establish that US forces might not have been involved, let alone those who were responsible for the deaths. There is an excellent outline of what a tag free article would look like here. V7-sport (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That has been addressed in the "Investigation" section. What is TomPointTwo's version. There seems to be nothing necessary to add. Same for the lead where we use TomPointTwo's version for this. IQinn (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Tag: Factual accuracy is disputed

Please tell us what you think is factual incorrect?: IQinn (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If nobody can name what would be factual incorrect until tomorrow than i am going to remove the tag as it is misleading to tag an article as factual incorrect when it is not. IQinn (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from that. The fact that few wish to engage in a so called debate with you any longer due to your behavior does not entitle you to proclaim "problem solved", just like when you initially removed both tags with no disputes settled, and thereby breaking the rules that you are so keen to uphold when they can do you good against opponents. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are breaking the rules (drive by tagging) by adding a factual accuracy tag to an article that is factual accurate. You have been asked for over a week now to point out what is still factual incorrect after the prior listed problems have been fixed. There is no basis for this tag anymore. There is no problem with factual accuracy unless you tell us what would be factual incorrect. So please point out what is factual wrong or the tag will be removed and i am not breaking any rules the tag placer has the obligation to explain what is factual incorrect. And i am looking forward you point out what you think would be factual incorrect so we can fix this but i am sorry the fact is you fail to name the problem and you fail to engage in a civil debate. I is fair to remove the tag after that long time as there is no evidences that the article is factual incorrect and the tag misleads out readers. IQinn (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not. But you do break the rules, for an example when you removed both tags on your own accord. There is already plenty to read about why the factual accuracy is disputed, because it's mostly the same things as in the beginning, but you try concealing those by making your "compromises". 82.182.76.119 (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Many things have been fixed and the article has changed substantial. Name what is factual incorrect in the current version so it can be fixed or we have to assume that this claim is false and the tag will be removed. To much time wasted with filibuster. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You know, or at least you ought to know what is objected to. If you really don't know, then it's just a matter of reading this talk page. I will not waste time naming everything for the purpose of your frequent attempts to remove tags before the disputes have been settled. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a reasonable request that you tell us what would be factual incorrect in the current version so it can be fixed. Your rejection to list outstanding problem with facts is not helpful in fixing the article. There is nothing factual incorrect in the current version after all the changes and the tag will be removed if you can not list the outstanding problems with regarding facts. So please tell us. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Link to the images of the victims repeatedly remove without sufficient justification

Before going to the EL noticeboard please tell us why you repeatedly removed an important link to the photos of the victims. The link: *Photo's of those who died. See also WP:EXT. IQinn (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed that link, and I will continue removing that link because the only importance of it is its use as extremely tasteless propaganda. The pictures do not add anything of value to the article, and what's written in the link is nothing but propaganda. Seeing how keen you are on linking to different rules, I thought I'd follow you suit on that: WP:ELNO Take some time to read #1 (the text in the link merely claims that US SF entered the village and offed the victims, a POV already extensively presented in the article) and #2 (as mentioned previously, the text states as a fact that US SF are responsible for the killings, something that can neither be accurate until much more light has been shed on this matter, or verifiable. The link is not there to inform us on theviewpoints of RAWA either). Then there's WP:ELPOV (in the beginning there were four (4) different links, all claiming that US SF are responible, whilst there still isn't one that says otherwise although there are many more POVs on who is responsible for the killings). According to these rules, the RAWA link and the others removed are class examples of inappropriate links. Is this sufficient proof for why the RAWA link in particular is inappropriate? 82.182.76.119 (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested in linking to the article i am solely interested to provide the reader to a link to the photos of the victims as to many people can not believe what has happened. So you are basically objecting to the articles text rather than the images themselves? How about the images would be located on another server would you also object a link to the photos of the victims? IQinn (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

On the condition that the last two photos (http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/plugins/mygallery/images/8/narang_killed_by_us_nato_photos.jpg and http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/plugins/mygallery/images/8/narang_killed_by_us_nato_photos2.jpg) are not included, due to the extreme graphic nature of them, and the fact that it'd be offensive to the killed men portrayed in the photos to be hung out all over the internet looking like that. I wouldn't want anyone to post pictures of my shot up corps, eyes wide open looking like a newly shot moose, neither do I think they wanted. The other photos are OK, not that I think anyone actually doubts the fact that the killings occured. In essence, all but the two mentioned pictures on another server without RAWAs article is entirely fine by me. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not see a problem with any of the images. Please understand Wikipedia is not censored WP:CENSORED and we not even speak about including the images into the article. I think you give two reasons why you do not want a link to these two images. 1) "it'd be offensive to the killed men portrayed" Well they are death so there is no WP:BLP concern leave alone that we just provide a link to the images 2) "due to the extreme graphic nature" Yes they are extremely graphic, so what? Ever seen images out of the Nazi concentration camps [5] or other atrocities out of the second world war? They are also from extreme graphic nature but never the less we show them in museums, books or on the internet. Or how about the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse images? I think these images are highly important as they are evidence and it is not up to us to censor. IQinn (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

They're not that important. Pictures depicting the Holocaust are entirely different. These men were killed, but not as part of a genocidal plot, and their pictures wouldn't serve as a representation in the same way as Holocaust pictures. There's no need for evidence as no one is doubting the fact that people were killed, and if they were to be used as evidence they'd probably have to come from an unbiased source (by no means RAWA) presenting them as evidence, since original resource can't be utilized. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

These images are important and sorry when i explained myself unclear before. I did not limit my example to the Holocaust rather than WWII with countless similar incidents. Such incidents like here where a large number of school-children become victims of war executed by special forces are shocking and yes many people will not believe until they see evidence looking back on the talk page here there were even people who doubt that these 10 young people have been killed even they had read the article and some of the sources. As said before it does not matter on what server the images are. Do you claim that RAWA altered the images? IQinn (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do you push it? Why not settle for all but two of the images? One is already included in this article. No one doubted that people were killed, and in from my view, you just gave yourself away by assuming as a fact that US SF are responsible for the deaths, the main reason why this talk page has grown at least 1000%. On a different note, they don't look very young to be honest, way too much facial hair. I've got two nephews and three step-nephews, ages ranging from 15-20. How come no one of them have been able to grow any noticable facial hair if nine Afghans, who without doubt are malnourished to some extent (people in those corners of the world usually are) have been able to? It's not very relevant, people have still been killed, but it lowers the credibility of the Afghan government investigation. Moreover the photos do not say anything about who are responsible, so why would they be that important? Besides, if someone really were to doubt the deaths that much, a couple of photos wouldn't convince him/her. People are killed all over Afghanistan, if they believe it's some sort of conspiracy behind this they could just argue that the photos depict others. I don't know what RAWA may have done or not with the photos, and I don't think they have altered them in any way. My point is that technically the photos from RAWA can't be presented as evidence since they are a biased organisation, and original research can't be used in Wikipedia articles. I don't think that the pictures depict any others than those killed in Narang, but since they are not presented as evidence by an unbiased organisation and can't be verified, I doubt wether or not it is appropriate to link the photos. Are we supposed to link to pictures of corpses every single time deaths are mentioned in Wikipedia articles, just to have some proof that it happened? Not that it's up to the articles to prove it, which technincally makes linking to photos for proof inappropriate. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It is obviously that you doubt that all the victims were aged between 12-18 what is verified in the article and what is really worrisome is you base your opinion on the almost ridiculous original research as how much facial hair your step-nephew had at a certain age. That is one good reason more to link to the images of the victims and to believe that you may do not understand our policies. I looking at the images have no doubt that they all were aged 12-18 most school children what is verified by the sources. May i ask how old are you? IQinn (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm thirtyfive, what's it to you? I based a personal doubt concerning the alleged ages of the victims upon the fact that five relatives in their supposed age didn't have nearly as much facial hair, the same applies to pretty much everyone, but those five were an example. It is original research, just like saying that 2+2=4 without providing a source, but it doesn't matter, because unlike you I have only expressed doubt based upon that original research in this talk page, which I am fully entitled to (did you think that sources are demanded here too?), instead of pushing for it being used in the article. And you seem to forget that this article isn't supposed to prove anything to anyone, so even if there had been widespread doubt as to the ages of the victims it wouldn't have mattered. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, or a detective agency wiht the mission of finding things out. "and to believe that you may do not understand our policies." Excuse me? I know that you've made something like 15.000 "contributions", but it doesn't make you a owner of Wikipedia. More over, you yourself have broken some of the rules, so don't pull that on me. I'm pretty convinced that you believe that the victims were aged 12-18 looking at the photos, but it's very easy to become convinced if you want to, which you have shown since the beginning of this that you want to. My original offer to compromise with the images (all but the last two, from an unbiased source) stands for 24 hours, then I'm out. Quite frankly, take it or leave it. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You should not advocate your opinion or conspiracy theories on the talk page when information has been verified. The victims were all aged between 12-18 years old. Full stop. Not even NATO disputes that. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion WP:NOTSOAPBOX. So please stop disputing the age of the victims based on how much facial hare your cousins had at a certain age.

It seems to be clear that conflict resolution is needed to solve this issue so i am going to initiate this. Will keep you updated about it. IQinn (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop misleading the debate. I made one remark concerning that I personally doubted the alleged ages of the victims, and you turn it into the end of civilisation. Get a grip man. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You better stop misleading the debate and get yourself educated with the sources. There was never any doubt in the sources that they were aged between 12-18 years, so you wasted a lot of our time by repeatedly disputing this fact based on facial hair of your cousins. IQinn (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh please! You've been pushing for this debate to continue since it began. I mentioned as a side line that I did not believe them to be that young. I never wrote that I would change anything in the article, I clearly wrote that that was my personal suspicion and no more, but you chose to take it further in an attempt to discredit me. Disgraceful behavior. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I just reminded you to keep your personal suspicion at home per WP:NOTSOAPBOX that is all. No big deal and i will keep you updated with the conflict resolution. IQinn (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that why you wrote that my "ridiculous original research" was one reason as to why the photos of the victims should be included? That's not a reminder, it's a straight accusation. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah this one reason more to link to the images as everybody can make their own judgement. Why censor them? There is not reason for that. IQinn (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what is the reason? I have only privately questioned the ages of the victims, it has never been a matter of editing the article in accordance with my doubts, so why should the images be inlcuded? There's already on in the article, in which you can clearly witness the burial of the dead. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess the talk page of the article is not that private and the question is why we should not have a link to the images of the victims. These images give additional information to our readers that no text and the one image in our article can not give. So why censor the link that some readers might find useful? The link to the images is important and i do not see any valid reason not to include it. People would accuse us to cover up and to censor information if we do not include the link to the images. What alone would be already reason enough to include the link. IQinn (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny how you argue against "the presentation of a weak single biased sources as truth" here yet you seem to think that it's fine for this page. Are we really to believe that RAWA is a reliable source?V7-sport (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again, do you claim that RAWA faked these images? Then say so. IQinn (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no way to know, since they are not a reliable source. V7-sport (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

RAWA an unreliable source? Do you have any evidence for that? IQinn (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Advocating name change of article

Due to the fact that as of now it can't be verified that US SF, NATO/ISAF, Talibans, or indeed even any combatants are resonsible for the deaths to which this article is subjected, I do not find the name "Narang night raid" to be suitful any longer, as it might suggest that it was part of a military operation, be it NATO or Taliban, something which can't be verified. Instead I suggest one of the following two names: "Narang killings", or "Narang mass murder". It really has nothing to do with who is responsible, as this act is a mass murder, no matter who is behind it, be it US SF, Talibans or just plain bandits. What are your thoughts on this? 82.182.76.119 (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And i do not think bandits or the Taliban would fly in with U.S. helicopters. NATO has authorized the night raid and that is verified. There is no problem with this name as it is the best name according to WP:TITLE IQinn (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, why do you keep spreading these lies? NATO still say they had nothing to do with it, but you make the best you can turning this article into some anti-NATO propaganda. The claim that US helicopters were there isn't a fact, and the claim that they are responsible is even less of a fact. On the other hand I think we can treat it as a fact that you know this was a mass murder, not a "night raid", but you want to keep the name that way because if you can turn this article into something that convinces readers into believing that US SF simply strolled straight into the village, and just for laughs decided to kill some of the locals, then the name "Narang night raid" will efficiently become associated with all the other raids readers will read of later, thus planting unbased assumptions and lies into their heads that those raids too were just for the pure amusment of NATO troops seeking to murder innocent Afghans. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you actually read the sources instead of calling other editors liars? NATO authorized the raid. [6] And U.S. forces took part in it though they said the were not leading. Stop spreading false propaganda onto the talk page and read the sources. IQinn (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "calling other editors liars", I am calling one, particular editor a liar in this case. I have not accused anyone but you, and I am correct to accuse you of that. NATO still disputes that their forces were even present, it's even mentioned in your source. One NATO general said that US forces were part of the raid but did not lead it, whilst the rest of NATO says they didn't even have any troops there. Obviously that statement didn't suit your propaganda campaign very well, might that be why you "missed" to mention it? 82.182.76.119 (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As said calling other editor a liar is uncivil and we have strong policies against incivility. WP:CIVIL so please stop this.

NATO authorized the raid. The Times lying? IQinn (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Exactly who carried out the Narang raid is unclear. Colonel Gross said that US forces were present but did not lead the operation. Nato insists that the troops were not part of the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf). US forces based in Kunar denied any knowledge of the raid." There you go, that's from the same article. Did you miss that too? You accuse me and others of spreading propaganda, and then you get upset when I call you a liar. You break the same rules, so don't act like you're innocent. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That is an undisputed fact that they keep secret who exactly took part in the raid nevertheless NATO authorized the raid. Your guess who NATO put together as an "assault force", Seals, CIA, private contractors they know but they keep it a secret. "Nato sources say that the raid should never have been authorised. “Knowing what we know now, it would probably not have been a justifiable attack,” “We don’t now believe that we busted a major ring.”

Nato’s statement, issued four days after the event, said that troops were attacked “from several buildings” as they entered the village. Yesterday it said that “ultimately, we did determine this to be a civilian casualty incident”. IQinn (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

And a month later, they backed down from that and statement and issued their new statement, in which they disputed that their troops were even present. That for an example is one of the factual problems with this article, as the later, updated statement from NATO is not present in the U.S./NATO section. Instead it ends with the earlier statement, which makes it seem like NATO later accepted responsibility for the killings. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to add another sentence to that section. I have asked you more than a week ago to read the latest version and to fix possible problems. So how about you do that? But notice that the "Investigation" section makes that already very clear now, it says: "NATO reiterated that the forces which conducted the attack were not under NATO command and were of a "non-military" nature.[3] NATO did, though, concede it authorized the operation and apologized for doing so, admitting the dead were likely civilians and that the intelligence on which the authorization was based was faulty." IQinn (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I'll loke over the sources to be 100% sure of this first, then I'll edit it, probably later today. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it has been some days now and you did not edit the article nor did you name what would be factually incorrect. If you do not do that in the coming few days then i am going to remove the factual accuracy is disputed tag. The tag is not good for our reputation. So let's fix it. Regards. IQinn (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed the "factual accuracy" tag as i have announced and i leave the disputed tag for the moment until the rest has been sorted out. Feel free to further edit the article. IQinn (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have kept this article under observation since my last entry here, and I do think that I should've written this earlier to avoid any misunderstandings: For some time (not too long hopefully) I won't have the time to edit the article in such a way that I feel the tag can be removed, and thus I ask you to let it remain until I have edited the article accordingly. If you feel that the need to remove it is very urgent, you can edit the article yourself and I'll give my input on it ASAP, and hopefully we can reach consencus on the tag issue. Consequently I will bring back the tag tomorrow if you don't feel like editing the article yourself. Thank you. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The article has been edited and there is nothing factual inaccurate. You have to show that something is factual inaccurate. So tell us where??? IQinn (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've told you: The NATO part of the article does not include later statements, denying involvment in the raid. Instead the article gives the appearence that NATO took full blame in the end. I'll fix it myself when I get the time, but if you want to there's no problems there. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The "Investigation" section makes that already very clear now, it says: "NATO reiterated that the forces which conducted the attack were not under NATO command and were of a "non-military" nature.[3] NATO did, though, concede it authorized the operation and apologized for doing so, admitting the dead were likely civilians and that the intelligence on which the authorization was based was faulty."

It has already been edited. What is still wrong with it? IQinn (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still buried beneath papers, but in short: My issue is that it isn't mentioned in the NATO part of the article, giving readers a false/faulty impression. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I edit it and removed the tags. Feel free to further edit the article. Regards. IQinn (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Times issue

It seems all the links to The Times are no longer leading anywhere but the main page, can someone update the links or remove them? 82.182.76.119 (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that looks strange. The articles and links are still to find in the Google results so that the change seems to be happened very recently and that might be only temporally. I will give it a few days and then i will fix them if they do not work again automatically. Thanks for notifying. IQinn (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

The article has been edited extensively and we have made good progress and i have heavily compromised. Edit the article or specifically name outstanding issues so that they can be fixed. IQinn (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The article has been fixed and there seems to be no outstanding issues regarding factual inaccuracy. Nevertheless people keep slamming the "factual inaccurate" tag on the article without editing it and without proving that it would be factual inaccurate. Everything that has been mentioned on the talk page regarding that has been addressed. I will wait a few days and if nobody proves that it is factual inaccurate than i am going to remove the tag. IQinn (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been a few days now and nobody was able to show that there is still something "factual inaccurate" in this latest version. The article has been edited in this regard. If nobody can show that there is something "factual inaccurate" in this version then i am going to remove the tag tomorrow. IQinn (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I waited another few days but nobody has shown that there is still something "factual inaccurate". If nobody does until tomorrow than i am going to remove the tag. IQinn (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I waited another week but nobody has shown that there is still something "factual inaccurate" so i am removing the tag. I will leave the disputed tag for the moment until the rest has been sorted out. IQinn (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding recent edit

I made a smaller edit in which I removed a part about the Afghan investigation that essentially said that due to the raiding party arriving in helicopters from Kabul, they were probably U.S. Special Forces. I did not remove it due to it's mentioning of foreign forces per se, but due to two reasons, 1. As far as I remember the first source made no mention of it when it could be read for free, and the two others don't, and 2. It is not at all indicating that what kind of forces they were, since regular forces just as well could have been transported in helicopters from Kabul. I do not consider it to be original research, but rather common sense, like 1+1=2. I also removed a part mentioning that the raiding party then walked into the village since I don't think it contributes to the text due to that it would be rather obvious.

For the record, now that Iquinn is gone I'd rather fancy if someone could provide real feedback and bounce ideas. 83.248.146.209 (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As already discussed that assertion was debunked and later withdrawn anyway so I'd say you can go ahead and remove it altogether. Also, if previous discussion is any indicator, I think we're pretty much on the same page for the preponderance of this article so if you want to start unraveling Iquinn's extensive bias and insidious POV in this article I'll back you up. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, good to hear. By the way, can you check if Iqinn ever did ask for neutral outside help to make us reach an agreement? I'm not that good at Wikipedia, and honestly, I suspect he understood that and assumed I'd not know where to look/make such a request myself, and maybe just said that he had done that to get me to back down and wait for a neutral third party that'd never come. Anyway, I'll be looking into the article more tomorrow. Right now I think we should look for more sources, especially since 5/11 of the current sources are articles written by one Jerome Starkey. Not only does it feel like there should be some more diversity, I also think the article looks less reliable to readers when nearly half of the sources can't be read for free, so maybe The Times of London should be a less dominating source?

Seems I've got a new IP adress, I'd better look into regestering an account tomorrow as well. 83.248.146.209 (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I assumed you're the same IP editor as before from the content, tone and geographic location of the IP address. The over reliance on a single transient reporter whose interest in the subject seem to wane once the evolving "scandal" narrative began to fall apart is defiantly a problem. Additionally the lack of details and concrete fact in a very fluid war zone makes chasing down additional sources with a confident degree of certitude that it's all the same subject is a problem. We'll hash it out once you register, feel free to hit me up on my talk page. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There we go, I've got an account. Bloody mess finding a username though, half a dozen attempts were needed before I came up with anything that wasn't taken. Anyways, I've been thinking about what should probably be dealt with first, i.e. the fact that, save the Reactions section, ~90% of the article is currently based on an investigation carried out by a third world authoritarian regime which has been indirectly blamed for the incident by it's ally. We don't have anything else to add before we've done some research, but considering that the Afghan investigation already dominates the intro and is the only thing written in the Summary Of Events and Investigation sections, I suggest that we start by simply clearing the Summary Of Events if there is some kind of "Work in progress" tag we can substitute the present material of the section for? Pavuvu (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)